coolbutuselessSurvey: what new bit of syntax would you like in base #RStats?
What should the following bits of syntax do?
* ===
* ++ And --
* +=
* //
* ?
* {{ }}
* [[[ ]]]
* <<==
* (?: X)
#RStats syntax hypothetical
count += 2
Increases 'count' by 2
Which means the following would be valid:
p <- ggplot()
p += geom_point(...)
p += geom_text(...)
Antonio R. Vargas@coolbutuseless What about count +<- 2
Hadley Wickham@coolbutuseless FWIW ? is already an infix operator, as in package?ggplot2. And @jimhester abused it for type annotation in https://github.com/jimhester/typeCheck.
Tyler Morgan-Wall@hadleywickham @coolbutuseless @jimhester Triple it for some added personality! `???` turns a boring conditional statement into one oozing with incredulity
x <- h > 3 ??? 1 : 2
Le Néandertal se sent las, las@hadleywickham @tylermorganwall @coolbutuseless @jimhester so I discover (reading the source...) that ? is a binary operator...
#RStats syntax hypothetical
{{ }} initiates a mode where whitespace is significant and R code can be formatted like python
{{
for (i in x)
s += I
cat("inside loop: ", s, "\n")
print("loop finished")
}}
Elio Campitelli@coolbutuseless Why you need to hurt us like this?
elianhugh@coolbutuseless this feels sinful
#RStats syntax hypothetical
for (v) {...}
is an anonymous for-loop.
Default variable is "_" or ".x" or something
#RStats syntax hypothetical
add 1 2
Bare function calls with arguments separated by space
Which gives rise to the following being allowed function calls:
git pull
luke i am your father
Henrik Bengtsson
MilesMcBain@coolbutuseless add a bare ',' for vector concatenation and I think you've nearly got powershell
{ id: d2718, ok: 🇵🇸🌈🏳️⚧️🇺🇦 }@milesmcbain @coolbutuseless Oooh, if the R parser would just allow trailing commas in lists &c., that'd be _great_.
#RStats syntax hypothetical
mean?
This is the same as "?mean" i.e. you can put the "?" at the end of the function name to access the documentation for that function
Gabo Gaona@coolbutuseless
Something like python mean you?
Something like python mean you?
#RStats syntax hypothetical
f <- function(year, x) {
# lunar phase for xth day of year
...
}
Three dots in a row is known as The Friday Operator.
R will call an LLM and get it to write the rest of the code.
Jared Norman@coolbutuseless I tried this with copilot, but it just gave me a wikipedia link 
Jordi Rosell@coolbutuseless IMHO function name should be so descriptive that make comments innecessary
Oliver D. Reithmaier@coolbutuseless
++ Increment
-- decrement
Btw some of these do exist, in the tidyverse for example curly curly {{ }} calls entities within functions. Or are you talking about base R?
June Choe* === as identical() (vectorized over list() elements, please!)
* // as integer division (like the complement of %%
* ? as a FALSE-coalescing infix operator à la `%||%`
* [[[ ]]] as a defensive version of `[[` that checks for "scalar (chr/int/etc.)" type
* (?: X) as syntactic sugar for quote()
* <<== as like <<- but assigns into ALL parent environments for maximum chaos
Konrad Rudolph@yjunechoe @coolbutuseless Integer division exists: %/%
@klmr @coolbutuseless waittt - TIL!
@yjunechoe snap!!!
I also want === to be vectorised 'identical()'
dgkf@coolbutuseless We already have `<-` and `->`, so why can't I assign up or down?
Let's add `^` and `v` assignment.
Jonathan Carroll@dgkf @coolbutuseless well, @mattdray did this one, I believe https://www.rostrum.blog/posts/2022-06-07-assign-down/
@coolbutuseless also, I want to propose `<--` for assigning in the parent frame, or `<---` for in the parent's parent and so on.
The length of the tail is how far back to assign.
baptiste@coolbutuseless <| the left pipe, thus allowing <|>, the questionable dot product of two nonexistent wave functions, and |><| that would presumably create code from nothing or annihilate it at a whim